Answering Rob Bell #6

I have waited a couple weeks to make this final response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins because I wanted to let the pot simmer and listen to my inner voices (yes, I hear voices; I vainly hope sometimes to hear the voice of Reason or Prudence.) Looking over my previous answers, I find nothing I would change.

What I have to say of Bell’s position finally may be too esoteric or arcane for the average reader here, but I think it bears saying. If I were to consider the idea that God may in fact choose to redeem all humans at some point, I would not argue, as Bell has, that the Creator’s actions are unfair and therefore unlikely or unattractive. I would propose that in the attempt to wrap our finite human minds around the infinite purpose of God we may leave room for an age in the distant future when perhaps God intends some final conclusion which is not explicitly described in our written revelation. It would be foolish, even arrogant to conclude that Scripture contains a complete exposition of everything that God can or must do.

This argument, that God may have plans which are not enumerated in the written record of his dealings with humans, is similar to the one we have when we debate whether there can be intelligent life in other places in the vast universe we know as the creation. I do not believe it violates what we do know of God to suggest that there may be other creatures with which he has other arrangements. I think of the space trilogy of C.S. Lewis in which he imagines other sentient beings on planets in our solar system. We know enough now that Lewis did not know to doubt the possibility he raises, but we can apply his idea similarly to other planets in other systems. What God has revealed to be true of Earth is not proved false if there are other beings elsewhere for whom he has different plans.

Likewise, if God has plans beyond the ages which are spoken of in Scripture, those plans do not abrogate what he has said of the ages he does detail. I get this opinion somewhat from the fact that the Greek language does not have one word often translated as “eternity” as many versions of the Bible do. While Bell hints at this fact in Love Wins, he fails to mention that there are two constructions in the Greek which refer to the long distant future. As Bell says, “unto the ages” is a proper literal translation for what our English renders as “eternal.” The second construction, missed by Bell, is “unto the ages of the ages.” If I were going to argue for an ultimate restoration of all humans, I would try to find reason for it in this construction. The question could be asked whether God is withholding something beyond the revealed plan for sometime in these distant ages.

This line of thought reminds me of the folksy argument reported among flees about who owns the dog they live on, or better, who owns the master of the dog. Our minds are far too small in comparison with the infinite mind of God to begin to draw firm conclusions about what he may or may not do beyond what he has said he will do. I do think we are safe in assuming that he will never, in any age, violate his divine character. The Bible seems to indicate that both love and justice dwell in complete perfection in the character of the Almighty. The Bible also seems pretty clear that both love and justice “win” in the end. Bell does not like the rules by which God plays, and to satisfy his human desire for fairness, he proposes to re-write the rules. What more can be said except to repeat that Rob Bell does not get to write the rules. God wins playing by his own rules. Deal with it.